Theory of General Minories

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

I keep looking at that unused white space near the tunnel entrance. Should it be filled with something? If so, what would be good?

That's always a problem with a classic Minories, even with the three platform version and one reason why the Est's theoretical suburban terminus remained just that- nobody ever gets a greenfield site for an urban terminus.

Could you perhaps make the ladder shorter and have a second ladder running the other side from the main line which would then push the main line more into the centre. That would also avoid the higher number platforms being much shorter. The problem is that if you look to the  big railway they generally have far more length to play with.  Bastille and Kings Cross were obvious exceptions but, even with the busy suburban termini on the north side of the Thames bridges they generally had at least four tracks leaving the immediate throat (though I think Fenchurch St. with just four platforms had three) 

Staff allotments would be good for an outer suburban terminus, not so sure about an urban one. In reality city termini used as little land as they coud so it woould have been buildings right up to the railway Fence. I suppose you could put the terrminus on a viaduct then the lower space in front of the approach could be terraced housing or something similarly urban.

Edited November 14, 2020 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The idea actually comes from the 1977 remodelling of Kings Cross reducing it down to 8 platforms and adding a center road to one.

Yes, basically two four-track stations joined by a scissors crossover. That's what I was hinting at.

[RJS1977]

19 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

I keep looking at that unused white space near the tunnel entrance. Should it be filled with something? If so, what would be good?

 

Might it make sense to move the turntable and coal staithes into that gap, reducing the width of the board, and, in a prototype sense, the amount of land required?

[Compound2632]

That is very much a classic turntable corner, if one looks at plans of steam era termini in cramped locations - Liverpool Lime Street is a classic example, with a cavity cut out of the rock cutting; also Liverpool Central. Map.

[RJS1977]

Though I suspect the more common prototypical arrangement would be to have the carriafe sidings next to the tracks, with the turntable beyond, to hide the locos from passengers on passing trains.....

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by RJS1977

[Keith Addenbrooke]

If you’ll forgive me, I think putting these two posts together illustrates one of the problems we frequently encounter almost perfectly...

 

30 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

That is very much a classic turntable corner, if one looks at plans of steam era termini in cramped locations - Liverpool Lime Street is a classic example, with a cavity cut out of the rock cutting; also Liverpool Central. Map.

 

8 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Though I suspect the more common prototypical arrangement would be to have the carriafe sidings next to the tracks, with the turntable beyond, to hide the locos from passengers on passing trains.....

 

 

...what the prototype actually does is, so often, just totally unrealistic!

Edited November 15, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Pacific231G]

7 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Though I suspect the more common prototypical arrangement would be to have the carriafe sidings next to the tracks, with the turntable beyond, to hide the locos from passengers on passing trains.....

 

I've not heard of that being a consideration, railway companies were generally rather proud of their locomotives!  It was generally good practice to separate sheds from passenger platforms and from goods yards simply to avoid dumping ash, soot and coal dust on them but most of the steam sheds I remember from the 1960s  were entirely visible from passing trains. However, carriage sidings would generally require more length so it would be more logical to run them and other long sidings alongside the running lines and build the relatively short and wide loco depots, turntables adding to the width, beyond on discrete chunks of land. You can see this at Old Oak Common where a bend in the Grand Union Canal created a convenient roughly triangular site to the north of the GWML MPDs were also often sited within the V of junctions  as at Southall, Reading, possibly Didcot (I'm not sure whether the Oxford avoiding line came after the MPD was already well developed there)  and York.  

[RJS1977]

12 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I've not heard of that being a consideration, railway companies were generally rather proud of their locomotives!  It was generally good practice to separate sheds from passenger platforms and from goods yards simply to avoid dumping ash, soot and coal dust on them but most of the steam sheds I remember from the 1960s  were entirely visible from passing trains. However, carriage sidings would generally require more length so it would be more logical to run them and other long sidings alongside the running lines and build the relatively short and wide loco depots, turntables adding to the width, beyond on discrete chunks of land. You can see this at Old Oak Common where a bend in the Grand Union Canal created a convenient roughly triangular site to the north of the GWML MPDs were also often sited within the V of junctions  as at Southall, Reading, possibly Didcot (I'm not sure whether the Oxford avoiding line came after the MPD was already well developed there)  and York.  

 

That was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment. I'm well familiar with the various sheds you've mentioned on the Western. However my memories of sheds in the north as I grew up (Longsight, Crewe, and Carnforth Steamtown on occasion), allied with read recollections in books and magazines, was of the frustration of not being able to see the locos all lined up on shed owing to carriages parked in the way! ;-)

 

Of course on a layout, the layout builder is likely to want to show off his locos to best advantage (and a turntable is a good showing off point) so it makes sense to have the loco facilities near the front of the board (unless you think you're likely to knock locos off while uncoupling the coaches....)

 

[KeithMacdonald]

20 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That's always a problem with a classic Minories, even with the three platform version and one reason why the Est's theoretical suburban terminus remained just that- nobody ever gets a greenfield site for an urban terminus.

Could you perhaps make the ladder shorter and have a second ladder running the other side from the main line which would then push the main line more into the centre. That would also avoid the higher number platforms being much shorter.

 

With a four-track entrance? I'm going to give that a try (music on hold).

 

A health warning in advance for those of a nervous disposition:  "Terminus Maximus Minories" may become "Totally Monstrous Minories".

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

29 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

With a four-track entrance? I'm going to give that a try (music on hold).

 

A health warning in advance for those of a nervous disposition:  "Terminus Maximus Minories" may become "Totally Monstrous Minories".

 

Or just use a mirror instead of a backscene between the fiddle yard and the bridge across the platform ends (a road bridge in the classic Minories - or a footbridge in your version).  All entry / exit moves appear the be simultaneous with parallel moves in the other half of the station, and tracks in the station throat are (literally) mirrored.

 

Could become a mixed blessing, but cheaper and more compact.

[KeithMacdonald]

Work in progress, situation report, the story so far...

 

I started with this, a ladder with right-handed points.

 

 

With a mirror-image ladder put alongside, using left-hand points, we get this, with two arrivals tracks and two departure tracks.

Note, the right-handed ladder is now at the bottom ladder, and the left-handed ladder is at the top.

 

 

Next, how to join the two ladders so that arrivals can reach the top ladder, and departures can reach the departure tracks at the top right corner?

 

 

The join is made up of a SL-93 crossing and four pieces of flextrack cut to lengths of 110mm.

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Stand back!

I did warn you this is becoming "Totally Monstrous Minories".

 

 

I've deliberately made it slightly assymetrical, just so it's not all straight lines, and to add a bit of variety to the platforms. Plus the goods shed and a few sidings.

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Stand back!

I did warn you this is becoming "Totally Monstrous Minories".

 

 

I've deliberately made it slightly assymetrical, just so it's not all straight lines, and to add a bit of variety to the platforms. Plus the goods shed and a few sidings.

More like Grand Central Keith. I can't help thinking that the goods depot is dwarfed by the station now.

[KeithMacdonald]

3 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

More like Grand Central Keith. I can't help thinking that the goods depot is dwarfed by the station now.

 

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb?

• One more goods platform
• Two goods sheds, one each for arrivals and departures,
• Three goods sidings (G1-3),
• Four loco sidings

(and a partridge in a pear tree)

 

Before anyone asks about the carriage sidings, the newly appointed Station Master is ex-Kings Cross and insists they should be stored well out of sight, beyond the tunnel entrance. For some strange reason, she also insisted the Goods Departures is platform 9 and 3/4's.

 

[SteveyDee68]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Before anyone asks about the carriage sidings, the newly appointed Station Master is ex-Kings Cross and insists they should be stored well out of sight, beyond the tunnel entrance. For some strange reason, she also insisted the Goods Departures is platform 9 and 3/4's.

 

Known to her friends as "Jakey", she also has a bee in her bonnet about express locos being painted LMS red and that a catering trolley service should be provided on all trains, whether passengers are muggles or not. Goods Departures are as stated; on the other hand, she does not allow Bads Departures regardless of starting platform number (muttering about ministry regulations and portkeys).

[DCB]

3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb?

• One more goods platform
• Two goods sheds, one each for arrivals and departures,
• Three goods sidings (G1-3),
• Four loco sidings

(and a partridge in a pear tree)

 

Before anyone asks about the carriage sidings, the newly appointed Station Master is ex-Kings Cross and insists they should be stored well out of sight, beyond the tunnel entrance. For some strange reason, she also insisted the Goods Departures is platform 9 and 3/4's.

 

 

Looks a bit like an anaemic KX but why the goods sheds?   The Goods yards dwarfed the passenger station in terms of area and at many stations considerable tonnage of parcels were dealt with at ordinary passenger platforms, the trick being this was outside peak passenger hours.  Pre 1960s modernisation all  platforms need to be connected to  up and down lines not so trains could arrive and depart from all platforms but to facilitate ECS workings.  Almost every main line train was washed and cleaned in Carriage sidings between trips, no clean up the vomit and newspapers in the platform during a 5 minute lay over

On the other hand Marylebone had 4 approach tracks for show, they contracted back to 2 as soon as trains were out of sight but it looked good having  two trains leave together. KX also pulled that trick, two left together but had to share the same track north of Welwyn viaduct. would have made sense for one to follow the other but where's the fun in that...   I must read all 68 pages of this thread when I have a spare lifetime or two.

Edited November 16, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[Joseph_Pestell]

4 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

Looks a bit like an anaemic KX but why the goods sheds?   The Goods yards dwarfed the passenger station in terms of area and at many stations considerable tonnage of parcels were dealt with at ordinary passenger platforms, the trick being this was outside peak passenger hours.  Pre 1960s modernisation all  platforms need to be connected to  up and down lines not so trains could arrive and depart from all platforms but to facilitate ECS workings.  Almost every main line train was washed and cleaned in Carriage sidings between trips, no clean up the vomit and newspapers in the platform during a 5 minute lay over

On the other hand Marylebone had 4 approach tracks for show, they contracted back to 2 as soon as trains were out of sight but it looked good having  two trains leave together. KX also pulled that trick, two left together but had to share the same track north of Welwyn viaduct. would have made sense for one to follow the other but where's the fun in that...   I must read all 68 pages of this thread when I have a spare lifetime or two.

 

Your post reminds me of a layout design point that I have looked at. Many terminus to fiddleyard layouts leave a lot of unscenic length which always seems such a waste at exhibitions. Kings Cross (and no doubt some other locations) gives a perfect solution with a goods yard above fiddleyard/approach tracks to the passenger terminus.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

More like Grand Central Keith. I can't help thinking that the goods depot is dwarfed by the station now.

That could then also have a second level below this one - not sure we should suggest that to t’other Keith, he’ll probably do it .

[KeithMacdonald]

7 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

 

Known to her friends as "Jakey", she also has a bee in her bonnet about express locos being painted LMS red and that a catering trolley service should be provided on all trains, whether passengers are muggles or not. Goods Departures are as stated; on the other hand, she does not allow Bads Departures regardless of starting platform number (muttering about ministry regulations and portkeys).

 

I don't know what's happened. Jakey's Catering Service Depot was on the layout yesterday, it seems to have become invisible.

 

Does "Bads Departures" includes late departures?

 

Don't mention it in public, I'm told that Jakey has a special technique to make sure all the departures leave exactly on time. If it's going to be late, she winds the Station Clock back one hour, then the offending train gets a second chance.

[KeithMacdonald]

I've been told it's very important not to confuse Station Master Jakey with Station Master Tolkien (on the Middle Earth Railway). His trains are never later either. Nor are they early. They arrive precisely when they mean to.

[SZ]

To intensify the intensity, a minimal Minories...

 

[Pacific231G]

40 minutes ago, SZ said:

To intensify the intensity, a minimal Minories...

 

That works and you only get an unseparated reverse curve on one of the four routes as opposed to two with a pair of straight crossovers. 

It also shows that the minimum length throat for a three platform double track terminus is the same four point length as for a two platform terminus. Seen from the end, the basic Minories throat does look as if the civil engineers aimed for the station and missed! Fortuanately that's less obvious from the side. What package did you use to draw it in 3D? 

 

 

[SZ]

4 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

That works and you only get an unseparated reverse curve on one of the four routes as opposed to two with a pair of straight crossovers. 

It also shows that the minimum length throat for a three platform double track terminus is the same four point length as for a two platform terminus. Seen from the end, the basic Minories throat does look as if the civil engineers aimed for the station and missed! Fortuanately that's less obvious from the side. What package did you use to draw it in 3D? 

 

It's 3D view in SCARM.

 

I like it, with two platform roads you have the quick succession of simultaneous arrival/departure, arrival, departure, simultaneous arrival/departure with no 'wrong line' departure from a platform 3 to occupy the signalling block and slow the flow (though it would be interesting to see which version copes better with a tidal flow, is the extra capacity of a platform 3 cancelled out by the 'wrong line' running needed to depart from it?)

 

Interestingly, if you reverse the throat (so that this view looks from the platform end) the 'wrong line' element of departing from platform 2 is completely removed giving a more complete segregation of arrival and departure roads (the arrival and departure 'forks' cross rather than interlace, but this reversal doesn't work for 3 platforms).

 

I'm thinking multiple units but loco-hauled with a new engine trailing in from off scene and the old engine chasing out would work too.

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by SZ

[Chimer]

My favourite remains 3 platforms with the extra road allowing simultaneous arrival in P3 with departure from P2 (as per @Pacific231G plan dated 16 August, back on page 3).  Which works rather nicely, no reverse curves at all, round a 90 degree curve using Streamline curved points .... I'm just about ready to launch a thread for comment on a plan using that approach.

 

Btw, I don't understand the comment about wrong line running.  If you think a departure from P2 involves wrong line running, then so must an arrival to P1.  As far as I am concerned, there are no wrong lines through a throat, just connections - which may or may not cross one another.

[SZ]

10 minutes ago, Chimer said:

Btw, I don't understand the comment about wrong line running.  If you think a departure from P2 involves wrong line running, then so must an arrival to P1. 

 

Yes, it's just a figure of speech for non-segregation of arrival and departure roads, the more segregation the less adverse occupation of signalling blocks.

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by SZ